On 29 September 1938, the four leaders of Germany, Italy, Britain and France signed an agreement on the fate of the Sudeten territory in Czechoslovakia, without the Czechoslovak authorities present, which, it would seem at the time, was a guarantee of peace. Such was the premise of the event, but in reality it represented the abandonment of Czechoslovakia (Weinberg, 1988: 165), by France in particular, and the naïve nature of the foreign policy of both Britain and France. It was a failure in upholding basic civil rights, and a manifest of weakness of the two countries to stand against the bully, Hitler. There are a few reasons for this: the inexperience in facing a new enemy, dictatorship, the times were bad for a war, (not many years had passed since the last Great War and the economies still felt the effects of the Great Depression,) the public opinion was against another war; the failure of the League of Nations, and the Locarno Treaty, in making countries work together, instead of following their own, selfish, ambitions, and, most important of all, the policy of appeasement, due to Neville Chamberlain.

Chamberlain's policy of appeasement rested on the theory that the objectives of Hitler were essentially “limited in scope... to reversing the wrongs which... had been done to Germany in 1919” (Thomson, 1990: 737). This fatal assumption that the fascist movement had limited objectives and the removal of nationalist grievances would satisfy it, was followed by years of false talks and sense of achieving peace, when the truth was quite the opposite. Furthermore, Chamberlain was inexperienced in foreign affairs, and he had a desire to reach Anglo-German alliance to follow up with what his father, Joe Chamberlain, had started (Adamthwaite, 1977: 62). By ensuing such an alliance, he would, at least on paper, bring peace, something that would be a major achievement for the Tories in the looming General Election. Perhaps Chamberlain's biggest mistake was his belief in the reasonable nature of both Hitler and Mussolini; again the inexperience in dealing with dictatorships showed itself. Chamberlain believed Hitler “was a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word” (Adamthwaite, 1977: 62), as he wrote after the Berchtesgaden meeting. Whether Chamberlain realised this was far from truth or not, and when exactly, is arguable, however, based on the military advise, that the “war in 1938 would mean an imminent defeat” (Eubank, 1963: 36) it could be argued that it was more of a case of gaining time than following policy. Nonetheless, Munich was received very favourably and Chamberlain was even nominated to a Nobel Peace Prize for it. The mood was, clearly, that of a victory and for this reason Chamberlain's character is the most crucial factor in Britain accepting the Munich Agreement.

On the other hand, France had very little choice other than acceding to the Munich, as it was virtually isolated in its promises to defend Czechoslovakian independence. The League of Nations, or other pacts signed throughout the inter-war period, worked selectively based on the benefits for the members. None of the other countries, like Poland or Romania, would act upon the crisis before any events unfolded; in short, unless Germany attacked France or any of the countries directly, they would not act, since their view on the fate of Czechoslovakia was indifferent, perhaps they could even gain something from it. This was a blow to the French who were seeking support from countries whom they were allied with. The unclear stance of Russia was also worrying; in the official letters to Prague they were dedicated to support the Czechs, but in reality they had no way of getting their troops into Czechoslovakia and in truth Stalin was also interested in acquiring the land himself (Eubank, 1963: 110). Moreover, Russia would only act if the French had acted first, which was not a...

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...Why – and with what success – didBritain and France persue a policy of appeasement in the 1930s?
To fully understand the political actions of Britain and France during the 1930s, a concise definition of the term appeasement must first be provided. As a policy, appeasement is the act of negotion with a country deemed to be a threat to peace and stability, through the provision of limited concessions in which to satisfy its demands. In this case, it was Britain and France's belief that showing leaniance to an increasingly powerful and threatening Germany under fascist leader, Adolf Hitler, would secure eventual peace and stability within Europe. The outcome, as we know from hindsight, was unsuccessful and lead to the outbreak of war in 1939, however before it can be dismissed as a failure on behalf of Germany's rivals, futhur investigation has to be made into why it took so long for Chamberlain to abandon his policy of appeasement in the eye of the storm, and why it was carried out in the first place.
The consequences and political implications in the aftermath of World War I had left Europe an unstable power vaccum. The collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire made way for smaller states with little military strength or defense borders, and Russia, with its new Communist agenda declared itself hostile. The USA, after its decisive intervention...

...Germany. However, the persuasive pull of the USA was strong – hence why the plan was adopted.
1) 12 million people out of work
2) 12,000 people being made unemployed every day
3) 20,000 companies had gone bankrupt
4) 1616 banks had gone bankrupt
5) 1 farmer in 20 evicted
6) 23,000 people committed suicide in one year - the highest ever
"It is not the function of the government to relieve individuals of their responsibilities to their neighbours, or to relieve private institutions of their responsibilities to the public."
Hoover.
There was no prospect at all of Britain and France risking their navies or armies in war with Japan. Only the USA and the USSR would have had the resources to remove the japanese from Manchuria by forces and they were not even members of the league.
Germany unhappy that other countries, especially France, were unwilling to disarm to their level (determined by the ToV)
France felt a militarily inferior Germany was the only insurance that a serious conflict like the previous war would not occur again, and so hoped to keep Germany weak
France built the Maginot Line 1929-1939 along the border of the Rhineland
Reflected its insecurity, suspicion and distrust in Germany and the treaty – showed Francedid not trust these treaties to succeed in their aim
France wanted protection and security from USA and...

...WhyDid the
Romans Invade
BritainBritain had lots of things
the Romans wanted









Lead
Wood
Tin
Wool
Pearls
Slaves
Gold
Silver
Corn
Corn
 As the Roman Empire grew bigger
there were more and more people to
feed
 More and more Romans started
living in towns leaving fewer people
in the country to grow crops
Valuable Metals: Silver
 The Romans made their
money out of silver – more
coins were needed as the
Empire grew.
 Britain already had silver
mines that the Romans knew
about.
 Silver was a luxury item for
rich Romans – so there was
a big demand for it.
Other Valuable Metals:
Gold and Tin
 Gold was used
for jewellery.
 Gold was used
in trade as a
means of
exchange.
 There was a
scarcity of gold
(not much of it
about ) but
Britain had
some
 Tin and pewter
were used for
cups and plates.
 Tin could be
mixed with other
metals to make
strong, hard
metals.
The Romans used a lot
of lead!
 Lead was really
useful for the
Romans.
 Lead was used
to make water
pipes and
plumbing
systems
 Lead was also
used to make
coffins like the
one pictured
right!
Slaves?
 Romans planned to used
captured Britons as slaves.
 Roman society was a slave based
economy so their was a big
demand for slaves in the rest of
the empire
 Slaves could be used to work for
rich Romans or for entertainment
Raw Materials: Wool
and Leather
 Wool was used
for making
Roman togas
(see...

...In 1919, Lloyd George of England, Orlando of Italy, Clemenceau of France and Woodrow Wilson from the US met to discuss how Germany was to be made to pay for the damage world war one had caused. Woodrow Wilson wanted a treaty based on his 14-point plan which he believed would bring peace to Europe. Georges Clemenceau wanted revenge. He wanted to be sure that Germany could never start another war again. Lloyd George personally agreed with Wilson but knew that the British public agreed with Clemenceau. He tried to find a compromise between Wilson and Clemenceau. Germany had been expecting a treaty based on Wilson's 14 points and were not happy with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. However, they had no choice but to sign the document. The main terms of the Treaty of Versailles were
* War Guilt Clause - Germany should accept the blame for starting World War One
* Reparations - Germany had to pay £6,600 million for the damage caused by the war
* Disarmament - Germany was only allowed to have a small army and six naval ships. No tanks, no air force and no submarines were allowed. The Rhineland area was to be de-militarised.
* Territorial Clauses - Land was taken away from Germany and given to other countries and a union with Austria was forbidden.
Adolf Hitler became president of Germany in January 1933. He straight away builds up Germany's army and weapons. In 1934 he made the size bigger the size of the army, by...

...﻿Ambreen Khan
Islamic Studies
Whydid the Quraish oppose the message of Prophet Muhammad (SAW)?
The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) grew up in the tribe of Quraish, which translates to ‘those who are successful.’ They were the most elite tribe in Makah, which was also known as Bakka. The Quraish had control of the economic, political and religion in Makkah. During this time there were many Arabs, which were divided into three groups Christians, Jews and Pagans. The Pagans around the Arab world worshiped idols, going to Makkah to visit the idols around the Kaba was important to them as it is important to Muslims today.
The Pagans would travel from all around the Arab world to come to visit the idols in Makkah. The Quraish had conditions for the people who wanted to do their pilgrimage in Makkah they were only allowed to do their pilgrimage if they bought an Ihram which were only sold buy the people of the Quraish or that they would have to go naked around the Kaba which many did in Sahih Muslim Ibn Abbas reported ‘Who would provide cloth to cover the one who is circumambulating the Kaba so that she would cover her private parts? And then she would say: Today will be exposed the whole or the part and what is exposed I shall not make it lawful.’ The Quraish controlled everything and no one could bring anything from outside of Makkah that was not sold by the Quraish.
The Quraish also made a lot of money by trading to Gulf States Syria,...

...﻿Whydid medieval Muslim scholars accept slavery as part of Islamic society?
The concept of slavery was one which featured universally during the medieval period. Under Islamic law, one was defined as a slave as a result of having slave parents, after being captured in campaigns of conquest or if they were purchased from abroad.1 Unlike the slaves used under the Roman’s and the Greeks, slaves in Islamic society were used predominantly for military and domestic purposes. This is apparent from the ninth century when al-Mu’tasim began to build his slave units, to the thirteenth century that saw slaves form the foundations of most armies between Egypt and Central Asia.2 By the Abbasid period, most slaves used in Islamic society were being bought from east and West Africa as well as Europe rather than being captured in Warfare. During the medieval period, the notion of slavery was largely viewed with ambivalence amongst Muslim scholars.3 Historian Egger describes how on the one hand jurists and scholars “ensured the legal existence of the institution by formulating a myriad of regulations that became enshrined in the Shari’a.”4 However, “on the other hand, the Shari’a admonished slave owners to treat their slaves humanely..”5 This essay will consider the extent to which Medieval Muslim scholars accepted slavery as part of Islamic society and the ways in which the Quran, the Hadith and the contemporary socio-economic climate...

...Whydid the Industrial Revolution begin in Britain? Before the 18th century, most people lived off of the land, as they had done so for many generations. But in the next 150 years, there was an explosion of new ideas and technological inventions that changed the way we work, live and play.1 This period of time was known as the Industrial Revolution, and it began in Britain. There are many reasons as to why this is so. Coal in Britain was plentiful, and had many applications, which was integral to the Industrial Revolution. Furthermore, its subsequent applications paved the way for technological advancements such as the steam engine. Beyond this, Britain had a form of government that supported industrialisation. Finally, capitalism, the new economic system in place, further stimulated Britain’s economy. All of these factors combined together allowed Britain to be the centre for the Industrial Revolution, and to eventually become the world’s industrial superpower. Coal was an essential mineral to the Industrial Revolution, as it was a powerful fuel source, and it was readily available for the British Empire. Coal was much more powerful than timber, the resource used at the time. 2 If Britain were to transition successfully into the Industrial Revolution, it would need a cheap, abundant fuel source to power its machines. Luckily for...

...‘Hitler had achieved a major triumph at Munich’
How valid is this assessment of the Munichagreement?
The quote ‘Hitler had achieved a major triumph at Munich’ has been an area of controversy for many of years, and there are many differing views on the topic, which brings about fierce debate. Some argue that Hitler had achieved a major triumph, as he had achieved a major milestone through occupying Czechoslovakia without firing a single shot. He played a game of bluff with everyone around him, and eventually got what he wanted. Although on the other hand some may argue that the Agreement was not a success and was a complete failure as Hitler ideal aim was to smash Czechoslovakia and start a war over it. As he did not achieve this and the fact he had it handed to him on a plate shows that he did not get the war he wanted, which indicates that the MunichAgreement was in fact failure and was based upon an opportunity that Hitler managed to manipulate in favour of the state.
It is apparent that there are many contradictory views concerning the Agreement, there are two main different views concerning the argument. One view is from the internationalists this argues that Hitler had underlined a clear plan with coherent ideas which he would follow through to the very end. Hitler knew what his aims were from the start, and had...